Four
Cardinal Errors, as I will call them, have all but destroyed
our original Republic, dating from July 4, 1776 with the Declaration
of Independence. Error One: the Republic failed to
gain full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown, and
this state of affairs went unrecognized. Error Two:
the country adopted an educational system whose premises were alien
to those of a free Republic. Error Three: Americans
slowly but steadily lost the “moral religiosity” of its
founding traditions, replacing it with a naturalistic materialism also
imported from Europe. Error Four: Americans did not
recognize the British Fabian Society for what it was, and stayed blind
as agents of Fabian permeation gradually assumed control over dominant
institutions and occupations in this country. This paved the way for
the piece-by-piece erosion of our sovereignty and its replacement by
world government (“global governance”).

The
first of these will doubtless come as something of a surprise. Please
allow me to elaborate. (The second, third and fourth will be dealt with
in future installments.)

Cardinal
Error One. Our Republic, founded in 1776, failed to retain
its full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown—which
had long been the wealthiest and most powerful secular entity in the
Western world. (See E.C. Knuth, The Empire of the City: The Secret
History of British Financial Power, orig. 1944).

I.

Concentrations
of power have always been dangerous. This can be as true of private
wealth as it is state power; when used to buy and retain the loyalty
of heads of state, private wealth is power. Such a system was built
up gradually by the Rothschild dynasty in the final third of the 18th
century. Mayer Amschel Bauer had been a child prodigy of sorts, growing
up in Frankfort-on-the-Main and learning the art of moneylending from
his father, Amschel Moses Bauer. The elder Bauer had started a counting
house and hung a red shield over the entrance. The Bauers were Ashkenazi
Jews, and the red shield was a revolutionary symbol. Young Amschel Mayer’s
parents having died from the plague, he was sent to Hanover to work
in a major bank. His talent obvious, he became a partner when still
in his teens. He returned to Frankfort and bought the family business
back. The red shield was still there. He changed his last name to Rothschild
(Rott schild = red shield), offered his services as a dealer in
rare coins to local heads of state, and as a moneylender. He was soon
on his way to becoming fabulously wealthy. He would move with his family
into a house shared with the Schiffs, another fabulously wealthy banking
dynasty whose most famous progeny would be Jacob Schiff.

Mayer
Amschel Rothschild had five sons and five daughters. He trained each
son in the science of moneylending, and eventually placed each in a
central bank in a major city in Europe: Amschel Mayer stayed in Frankfurt,
Salomon Mayer went to Vienna, Nathan Mayer went to London, Kalmann (Karl)
Mayer went to Naples, and Jacob (James) Mayer went to Paris. Remaining
in close communication, the five Rothschild sons became the first internationalists
whose only loyalties were to money, power, and the Rothschild name.
Central bankers had adopted fractional reserve banking, the art and
science of lending more money than the bank had in reserve—in
effect, creating money out of thin air—and then charging interest
on it. This had proven to be a road to riches previously undreamt of!
Mayer Amschel Rothschild has been quoted: “Allow me to issue and
control a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”

Each
Rothschild daughter, meanwhile, married into another wealthy banking
house, extending Rothschild influence but without using that name. Within
a couple of generations, there were people advancing Rothschild causes
who very likely had no idea who they were working for.

The
British Crown was, as we already noted, one of the largest repositories
of wealth and power in the West. The Crown’s Dutch East Company
spanned the globe. It was inevitable that the most talented of the Mayer
Amschel’s sons—Nathan Mayer—would establish his bank
(N.M. Rothschild & Sons) in the hoary City of London, the heart
of Crown territory. Soon, Rothschild influence also spanned the globe.

II.

The
colonies established in North America were intended to be commercial
entities serving the Crown. The colonists eventually began to chafe
at the fact that they were not treated the same as other British citizens.
Contrary to what many history books teach, they did not initially want
independence from the British Empire. ‘Taxation without representation,’
for example, was obviously not a demand for independence but for equal
treatment under British law. Their demands met with no response from
King George III, who in 1775 proclaimed the colonies to be in rebellion.
(Note that word proclaimed. We will see it again.) By the end
of the year, independence stirrings had begun. In early 1776, Thomas
Paine published Common Sense. Paine’s tract brazenly
attacked the very institution of monarchy and made an eloquent case
for independence over reconciliation: “The authority of Great
Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or
later must have an end …” And later: “A government
of our own is our natural right.” Common Sense was widely
read throughout the colonies. A Declaration of Independence was inevitable,
as was the war for independence which followed.

Advertisement

Thirteen
colonies became a Perpetual Union of sovereign states under the Articles
of Confederation—a document creating a highly decentralized society
rooted in the assumption that concentrations of power are dangerous.
By the mid-1780s, however, the elites within the states were grousing
that the federal government established under the Articles was too weak—and
to be sure, a number of volatile issues both within and between the
states had erupted which it was unclear could be resolved peacefully
under the authority of the Articles. It wasn’t clear that the
Perpetual Union established under the Articles was sustainable. In 1787
the states sent representatives to the first Constitutional Convention,
which met behind closed doors. Its stated purpose was to revise the
Articles of Confederation. But why the secrecy? This raised red flags
even then.

The
representatives emerged after three months with an entirely new document,
the Constitution of the United States of America. When asked by a woman
what kind of government this Constitution created, monarchy or republic,
Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep
it.” One thing was for sure: the Constitution had created a stronger
central government than its predecessor. It is unfortunate that Thomas
Jefferson had been in Europe while this was going on. Had he participated
in the Constitutional Convention, it is at least possible that the resulting
Constitution and all subsequent history might look very different.

To
be adopted, the new Constitution needed ratification by nine of the
thirteen states. James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton penned
The Federalist Papers making a public case for ratification.
Others—whom history labels the “Anti-Federalists”—smelled
a rat and argued against the Constitution’s ratification. Authors
such as Richard Henry Lee and Robert Yates (no known ancestral relation
to the present author) among others circulated numerous statements contending,
among other things, that the Constitution contained too many loopholes
which those who wanted a still larger central government would eventually
climb through. Among their worries was the lack of an explicit statement
of people’s natural rights which the federal government was obligated
to respect. Statesmen like George Mason paid attention. A compromise
was reached: a Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution)
was inserted.

In
light of history, this wasn’t enough. History has validated the
fears of the “Anti-Federalists.” But alas, we get ahead
of ourselves.

The
Constitution created a new system of government, one stronger and more
centralized than that of the Articles but still limited. The federal
government was to have three branches, each with specific delegated
powers—or, better, responsibilities, since the overriding aim
of having a Constitution was to contain power by creating a balance
of powers within the federal government itself; and with dual sovereignty—the
central concept of true federalism in which the powers of the federal
government were few and carefully defined while the rest was left to
the states (Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

Among
the responsibilities assigned to Congress was to “coin money and
regulate the value thereof.” Article I Section 8 did not authorize
Congress to delegate this responsibility to any private entity or public-private
partnership. This clause in the Constitution was abrogated almost at
once by Thomas Jefferson’s arch foe Alexander Hamilton, allowed
to create the first Bank of the United States over Jefferson’s
explicit objections. Jefferson’s warnings about central bankers,
doubtless based on first hand observations from his time in Europe,
are well known.

It
is likely that the European banking elite—centered in dynasties
such as that of Rothschild and Schiff—wanted to destroy the fledgling
Republic across the ocean right from the start. They would bring it
under their control, or else! The Treaty of Paris of 1783 had officially
ended the war, but His Brittanick Majesty’s overbearing presence
remained, including on U.S. soil. President George Washington, seeking
to avoid renewed hostilities with the still-powerful British war machine,
sent John Jay to London to work out a new treaty that would diffuse
the danger of renewed conflict. This treaty—virtually forgotten
by historians today—became known as the Jay Treaty and was very
controversial in its time. It was signed in London on November 19, 1794.
Back in the states, it was submitted to our Senate on June 8 the following
year and provoked an angry and rancorous debate. It was finally passed
on June 24 (the vote was 20 – 10). The House passed it on August
14, 1795. Then it was sent back to the British. Great Britain ratified
it on October 28, 1795; His Brittanick Majesty proclaimed it on February
29, 1796.

Time
out! Remember that word proclaimed? What, precisely, do we
mean, proclaimed? There was no basis for a recognition of proclaimed
in the Constitution! Proclaiming was something done by British
royalty, not Constitutional Republics!

What
this means is bound to be startling, even to Patriots who believe they’ve
seen everything! In the last analysis, given that it was proclaimed,
the Jay Treaty is more a British document than an American one.
His Brittanick Majesty ended the American War for Independence on February
29, 1796—with a treaty that does not explicitly assent to
U.S. sovereignty and independence. Rather, it establishes “a
firm inviolable and universal Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship
between His Brittanick Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and the United
States of America …” Had Americans just fought a war for
independence only to have established an ambiguous “Friendship”
with the Crown, one that is “inviolable”?

Advertisement

The
disturbing question that should pull us all out of our comfort zones:
in this last analysis, did the United States of America remain,
however covertly, under the thumb of the British Crown? Were Americans
merely allowed to believe they had attained full sovereignty?

A
final note about the Jay Treaty. Its Articles V, VI and VII of the Jay
Treaty establish the first international mixed commissions, to resolve
disputes not yet resolved through negotiation. This set an important
precedent for later “commissions of inquiry” with autonomous
decision-making power.

III.

Remember
that Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States was in operation
by this time. Hamilton had defended what amounts to mercantilism in
Federalist #12. Unlike Jefferson and the “Anti-Federalists”
he wanted a centralized and activist government. Was Hamilton secretly
working for the Crown, and therefore also for the Rothschilds? His goals
aligned with theirs, and the future was open to the very meddling by
European bankers about which Jefferson was warning everyone who would
listen. A few historians believe Nathan Meyer Rothschild ordered the
War of 1812 as punishment for our refusal to recharter Hamilton’s
bank (so much for the “inviolability” of the Friendship
Treaty from the Crown’s point of view). Wars, of course, create
debt; central banking, to create the money to pay the debt, becomes
an irresistible temptation. The Second Bank of the United States was
chartered in 1816. Rothschild agents John Jacob Astor, Stephen Girard,
and David Parish were placed in charge. With Nathan at the helm, the
Rothschilds ascended to full power during the first two decades of the
1800s—especially with the insider-trading stunt he pulled with
the Battle of Waterloo which made him Great Britain’s richest
man.

President
Andrew Jackson—a hero of that war following his victory in the
Battle of New Orleans—would shut down the Second Bank of the United
States having denounced the institution as “a den of vipers and
thieves.” This was the culmination of his protracted battle with
Rothschild agent Nicholas Biddle, who had assumed the Bank’s presidency
in the 1820s. The bankers retaliated by causing a near-depression that
severely damaged the remainder of Jackson’s presidency. He would
survive an assassination attempt on January 30, 1835. His would-have-been
assassin admitted working for “foreign interests.”

While
we had no central bank during the decades which ensued, we also had
no means to prevent Rothschild meddling in American affairs. For example,
Rothschild agent August Schoenberg came to our shores and changed his
last name to Belmont. He began purchasing government bonds,
rose in wealth and stature through his firm August Belmont & Co.,
and eventually became an advisor to the White House. John Slidell, another
Rothschild agent, had been a merchant in New York before relocating
to New Orleans to build up a law practice. He would serve in the Louisiana
House of Representatives. Finally, Judah Benjamin was a Rothschild agent
who would rise to become Jefferson Davis’s chief advisor. Yes,
we now have pretty good evidence that the attempt to divide the U.S.
in two was a Rothschild scheme from the get-go. The emerging battle
over slavery served as a convenient issue on which to focus public attention.
Those with real power couldn’t care less about such things as
the treatment of minority groups unless it creates a wedge issue they
can use.

Fractional
money flowed into the coffers of corporations that built the industrial
revolution that transformed the Northern states during the second third
of the 1800s. This process took people off the land they had farmed
and sent them into burgeoning cities. It created a fundamentally different
culture. Invariably, people began to lose touch with the land and would
eventually lose the ability their ancestors possessed to live off the
land. The North’s commitment to industry versus the South’s
preference for an agrarian economy also helped set the stage for dividing
America into two separate nations that could be more easily brought
under Rothschild/Crown control.

Was
the most violent war ever fought on U.S. soil really orchestrated from
overseas, or is this just a “conspiracy theory”? Consider
what Otto Bismarck (a protégé of Frankfort’s Amschel
Mayer Rothschild) would say in 1876: “The division of the United
States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil
War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid
that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation,
would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset
their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds
prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field
to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the
two sections of the Union.”

Abraham
Lincoln thwarted the division of the U.S. into two separate nations—and
kept the nation out of debt to foreign bankers by printing Greenbacks.
He’d had to sign a National Banking Act (1863) as a wartime measure,
however, and this was a step back toward a central bank. Some recent
treatments of Lincoln portray him as a ruthless and unscrupulous tyrant
(see, e.g., Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln, 2002).
In a sense, he was between a rock and a hard place. By using brute force
to bring the Confederacy back into the Union he thwarted the Rothschild
scheme but there was a steep price: the end of dual sovereignty and
hence of true federalism. The federal government ascended to its present
status as dominant over the states. The consolidation of federal power
(which should have become known as central power) proved to
be permanent. The South, ravaged by war, descended into poverty. For
all this, there are Southerners who have never forgiven Lincoln. On
the other hand, had he allowed Southern secession to stand, this would
have given the Rothschilds what they wanted—and heralded an uncertain
future for both societies in which neither would have enjoyed what sovereignty
they had for very long. Lincoln seems to have known what was really
going on. In an 1865 statement he told Congress, “I have two great
enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions
in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”

Lincoln
made other remarks suggesting that he believed his life would end violently,
with an assassination. He knew he had made enemies who had no scruples
about murdering those who interfered with their plans. Not long before
his assassination he wrote: “The money power preys upon the nation
in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It
is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish
than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations
have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow,
and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign
by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated
in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Suffice
it to say: a major treaty ending our initial conflict with Great Britain
in the late 1700s was proclaimed (not simply signed or ratified).
The money that grew U.S. industry in the 1800s came from Great Britain—a
great deal of it came specifically from that powerful family ensconced
in the City of London: the Rothschilds. The effort to divide the nation
also appears to have emanated from the Rothschild/Crown axis. Even though
the Rothschild/Crown axis lost that battle, the question remains: was
our Republic ever truly sovereign and free of Rothschild/Crown interests?
It appears not! To be sure, we believed we were free. We generally acted
as if we were free! But were we merely allowed to believe we were
free while in truth remaining the Crown’s biggest covert colony?
For part two click below.

Steven Yates
has a doctorate in philosophy and has taught the subject at a number of
Southeastern colleges and universities. He is the author of two books:
Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994) and Worldviews:
Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005). His articles and reviews
have appeared in refereed philosophy journals such as Inquiry, Metaphilosophy,
Reason Papers, and Public Affairs Quarterly, as well as on a number of
sites on the Web. He also writes regular columns for a conservative weekly,
The Times Examiner. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina with two spoiled
cats, Bo and Misty

Thirteen colonies
became a Perpetual Union of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation—a
document creating a highly decentralized society rooted in the assumption
that concentrations of power are dangerous.